Holy Roman Blitzkrieg
As the biting winds gusted across the white-capped waves of the Atlantic Ocean, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill solemnly gazed out to sea. It was August 1941, and they had just confirmed a declaration of principles for the Atlantic Charter. Key military officials from both countries had shuttled to the secret meeting to ensure that after the war there would be an adequate structure for preserving the peace of Europe and the world.
Part one of the Atlantic Charter stated, “They have considered the dangers to world civilization arising from the policy of military domination by conquest upon which the Hitlerite government of Germany and other governments associated therewith have embarked, and have made clear the steps which their countries are respectively taking for their safety in facing these dangers.”
These two wartime leaders went on to state that the key to uninterrupted peace in Europe lay in the disarmament of its countries. Furthermore, they emphatically stated in point eight of the charter that “they believe all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force.”
Four years after the signing of the Atlantic Charter, the lone voice of Herbert W. Armstrong warned of German-led Europe’s unbending will to rearm and unite again: “We don’t understand German thoroughness,” he said in a 1945 radio broadcast. “From the very start of World War ii, they have considered the possibility of losing this second round, as they did the first—and they have carefully, methodically planned, in such eventuality, the third round—World War iii!” (The World Tomorrow, May 9, 1945).
The Atlantic Charter was the precursor to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nato was created in April 1949, quite simply, as a one-for-all, all-for-one defensive alliance between ten European nations, the United States and Canada. The organization’s role as neighborhood watchdog was to prevent the repeat of anything akin to Germany’s World War ii hegemonic romp across Europe, as Russia loomed threateningly on the horizon.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, nato has searched for a new identity. At the same time, despite European, U.S. and UN opposition, Germany and the Vatican recognized the breakaway Balkan states of Croatia and Slovenia. Under the prodding of Germany, and not wanting to ignite a diplomatic conflict, the U.S. administration led nato into a dangerous new interventionist role instead of its former role, which was purely defensive. The following years saw nato become overextended in the Balkan quagmire as Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia all broke away from the former Yugoslavia, and Kosovo became embroiled in conflict.
Blinded by an infantile foreign policy, nato and the West (primarily America and Britain) aided and abetted German-led European ambitions. Camouflaged under the cloak of nato, committed corporatists, bureaucrats and politicians within the emerging European superstate were beavering away, achieving their long-held imperial objectives.
At the 50th anniversary celebration of nato in April 1999, European allies massaged the amendment to Article 30 of the alliance to pave the way for the European Union’s assumption of greater security and defense responsibilities. Then in June at Cologne, and again in December at Helsinki, the European Council outlined its “headline military goal” for what was to become the European military force.
In the European Commission’s November 2000 regulation for the creation of a European rapid reaction force, the EU outlined that it had “First Pillar responsibility” in conflict resolution throughout Europe. This staggeringly presumptuous document details point by point the “pressing need” for the EU to handle conflicts inside and outside of Europe, independent of nato, through its self-proclaimed solution to world conflict—the European rapid reaction force (rrf).
Rapid Reaction Force
The deal was sold to nato by the EU as complimentary military support, which ostensibly would ease the burden of Europoliceman for the United States. Despite claims by nato’s secretary general and the EU president that the EU force will not undermine nato, European Commission documents outline future expansionary measures for the rrf. The creation and implementation of the rrf will simply leave nato to twiddle its thumbs on the sidelines.
The EU’s “Military Capabilities Declaration” outlined an initial rapid reaction force of 100,000 soldiers, approximately 400 combat aircraft and 100 warships. At a recent EU meeting, defense member states (and even non-member states) pledged over and above the required quota of soldiers, aircraft and ships. Not surprisingly, Germany will provide the most soldiers—almost 14,000. The rrf plans to link communication systems with nato and share sensitive intelligence and military hardware. The EU also announced that German General Klaus Schuwirth, son of a World War ii Nazi officer who taught at the Hitler war academy, would lead the forces. With a fully functional headquarters and support system, the rrf will select battle troops from its soldier “catalog” for specific missions.
Aside from this newly created rrf, the EU already has a collective military force of over 2 million personnel in uniform within its member countries.
In a November 28, 2000, interview with the Trumpet (see p. 23), British political economist Rodney Atkinson provided his view of the rrf: “[Germany is] the beneficiary. This idea, as I say, of Germany, through its secret service, undermining and destroying Yugoslavia—that led to a crisis. Then they say, Okay, we’ve got a crisis; we’ve got to have an army to deal with it. We can’t rely on the Americans to come and help us. And that rapid reaction force is, and is meant to be, an embryo European army.”
Europe’s boldness regarding the implementation of the rrf reveals three distinct global indicators worth noting: first, a weak-willed U.S.-led nato; second, a strong German-led Europe; and, finally, a suspicious yet cautious Russia trying to play each side against the other.
Predicting future German-led European political, economic and military expansion, Herbert Armstrong, with unique prophetic insight, declared 20 years ago, “You may be sure the West European leaders are conferring hurriedly and secretly about how and how soon they may unite and provide a united European military force so they can defend themselves!… And who will they blame for their humiliation and their necessity now to have a united Europe, with a united government, a common currency and a common military force as great or greater than either the USSR or the U.S.? They will blame the United States!” (Plain Truth, April 1980). Mr. Armstrong said that 20 years ago!
Far from the 1941 desire of Roosevelt and Churchill for Europe’s “abandonment of the use of force,” nato’s weakness in allowing the EU to dance to its own military tune is systematically undermining the very purpose of the North Atlantic treaty. Far from the initial purpose of the Atlantic Charter to demilitarize Europe, natois permittingGerman-led Europe to rearm, blindly gifting to the EU the use of nato military material.
As rudderless nato drifts aimlessly, Europe is arming its blitzkrieg (rapid reaction) battalions in preparation for their prophesied third thrust for global dominance.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has aggressively supported the creation of a Euroforce. Gerhard Schröder’s first overseas visit after gaining office in 1998 was to Number 10 Downing Street. At that meeting, Blair pledged his support for Schröder’s pressing for an expanded European defense policy. As a reward for his service to Germany’s European interests, Tony Blair was presented, on May 1999, with the Charlemagne Prize.
Since that time, the prime minister has passionately taken up the rrf cause and promised much to EU partners. Without the approval of the public, he has vainly pledged to Europe 12,000 British troops, 72 combat aircraft and 18 warships. Unfortunately, he was not banking on the British press and general public coming out vehemently opposed to his policy of military cooperation with Europe.
Tragically, Britain’s collaborative EU defense policy stems from a generation now in government which has no grasp of the historic hostility that has existed through centuries and even millennia of time between Germany and Britain, America and their allies.
Margaret Thatcher’s labeling of the Euroforce policy as “monumental folly,” in a recent interview with British newspaper the Sun, set off a firestorm of political rhetoric. While Blair denounced Baroness Thatcher’s comments, opposition leader William Hague took up the mantel and has been hounding Tony Blair in the House of Commons, pointing to the fact that British integration into a EU military force will not only destroy British national sovereignty but also eliminate nato and alienate the United States. Adding to the voice of opposition, Gulf War General Sir Peter de la Billiere, along with other generals and military advisers of past British governments, see the plan as dangerous to British national security. Blair’s European-policy bouquet could well be the very issue that causes his political defeat in Britain’s next election.
The Trumpet warned of Britain’s weakness and foretold its downfall in our September/October 1999 edition. “Britain (biblical Ephraim) is simply being used by Germany. The Britain described in scripture as a ‘cake unturned’ (Hos. 7:8) will soon find itself dropped like a hot cake when Germany has no use for Britain to legitimize the world’s perception that it has changed its ancient, aggressive habits.”
Watch for Britain to become increasingly divided over the volatile defense issue in the coming months.
The historically schizophrenic U.S. view of European defense was summed up in Defense Secretary William Cohen’s final speech before a concerned nato at their December meeting in Brussels. “If there is openness, transparency and a noncompetitive relationship, then the United States would remain committed” to nato, he said. But “if we had a competing institution that was established that would be inconsistent with military effectiveness, then nato could become a relic” (International Herald Tribune, Dec. 6, 2000).
Speaking in America, in October of 1995, Margaret Thatcher accurately forecast the future of this dangerous European alliance: “You have not anchored Germany to Europe; you have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany. In the end, my friends, you’ll find it will not work.”
The Coming Conflict
“O Assyrian [modern Germany], the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation” (Isa. 10:5). Bible prophecy foretells that German-led Europe will soon bring great destruction on this world (v. 6).
Many scriptures indicate that Britain and America, along with their fellow Israelitish nations, will endure a time of great tribulation under the boot-heel of their old enemy Assyria. This will be the time of America and Britain’s greatest trial. The Prophet Ezekiel foretold Britain and America, the leading nations of biblical Israel, entering into alliances with the Assyrians, only to find the mutable Germans turning on them and leading them into slavery (Ezek. 23:9).
God is going to use Germany as His tool to punish America and Britain. Then, a few years later, God will use the Russians and Chinese to steamroll the Germanic Vatican-led European Union (Dan. 11:44). Finally, these great powers will gather in the valley of Armageddon, located in the Middle East, to fight the coming world ruler—Jesus Christ. Are you watching these events unfold? Will you be ready when they literally knock on your door?